Talk:Elfen Lied

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Elfen Lied article.

Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Good article Elfen Lied was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve and expand anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Elfen Lied as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Russian language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] UK airing

Just added a quick note to the anime section of the mainpage saying that EL will start on British TV on June 3rd on the Propeller Sky channel (specifically, 9:30pm) Sephjnr 19:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that a "normal" channel or satellite?--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 01:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Satellite only (Sky Digital) Sephjnr 09:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ending theme

I have mentioned in the article a possible relation between the ending song text and Yuka's jealousy. However, this is just an idea of mine, so I wanted to mention it here so that I can be corrected (in case this is needed). I do not know Japanese but I have an edition with full Italian subtitles, so I've seen in the lyrics sentences like "say I'm the only girl for you". --Blaisorblade 14:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR states that unless it's been verified by the creator(s) or published in a reputable third-party source, it shouldn't be added to Wikipedia. Yes, the song is from the perspective of a girl who wants a certain guy to ask her to be 'his', but that doesn't mean it's necessarily picked for that. The song came before the series. Nique talk 14:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Seems to be Lacking

I just finished watching the series and the ending being as it is, I came to the Wiki to see if links where provided or if it was at all mentioned a la The Sopranos finale. So, maybe so much not the main article, as there should be articles for the individual episodes, especially since it seems each episode seems to have a lot of continuity points that could be made. Not so much for breaking it, but for-shadowing and the such.

[edit] Nyu or Nyuu?

The vast majority of anime review pages out there spell it "Nyuu" as far as I can see so I'm thinking of changing that. ætərnal ðrAعon 08:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

How is it subtitled?--SeizureDog 01:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've only seen the Madman subtitling, plus the English release online, and they spell Nyuu with 2 "u"s. ætərnal ðrAعon 09:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The official DVD set lists and subtitles it "Nyu" whenever the name appears. That's what we should use, since it's official, and we're already using the official romanization for Kohta. Nique talk 14:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I use it as Nyū. the "u" has a line thing over it meaning it's holding the sound, making it seem like 2 U'sOsirisV 16:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Then again, most people would refer to it as "Nyuu", so when they search for it, they owuld search "Nyuu". If you look at it, typing "Nyu" in the search bar redirects us to a totally different topic. Maybe, as it is done for most characters, Nyuu (にゅう Nyū?), which uses both spellings as people understand it. ætərnal ðrAعon 00:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genre

Could we get something straight here? Some people are making claims that the show is "satire", ecchi, harem, or, as one put it, comedy. Face it, Okamoto has gone to some liberties with bodily exposure over the series, however there are virtually no sexual references. For those who think it's comedy, sure, there are small bits which are laughable, but I don't think slaughtering, themes of isolation and anger and the show questioning the value of humanity itself is that much of a comedy. Well, maybe, emo comedy. ætərnal ðrAعon 09:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely finding it funny isn't all that uncommon a reaction? I know I found the first scene culminating in the secretary's death absolutely hysterical. --Gwern (contribs) 19:32 18 September 2007 (GMT)
Hmm Im not sure if this should be satire. Since satire typically means in a jovial or humorous manner. And the depiction of humanity and are worthiness to be the superior race on this planet wasnt much "satire" at all.68.226.125.194 21:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I've reduced the genre field to just the three most common genres that the entire franchise is listed as by both ANN and AnimeNfo. If anyone adds additional genres, they should cite a third-party source of some form instead of continuing to engage in original research. --Farix (Talk) 00:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The manga did have alot of sexual references as well as a large amount of nudity, sex scenes and not just of Lucy/Nyuu, not the anime trough but the manga version is cleary ecchi harem/semi mature..WillTheWitch —Preceding unsigned comment added by WillTheWitch (talkcontribs) 21:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural references missing?

the mention of the poem is still there, but the article on the opening scene borrowing/ussing posses from paitings are gone' what happenen ? did someone delete the bit about the paitings?-WillTheWitch

[edit] Result of experimentation?

The article says Diclonii are the result of experimentation. Didn't they say in the anime that it was an evolutionary event, and that they are completely natural. 81.69.78.99 (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That's true. And Lucy called Nana's vectors "experimental equipment" due to her inexperience in using her vectors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.93.81 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Plot Extension

Looks like Eternal Dragon posted something here about extending the plot section. While its not against the rules to post spoilers and such, it really doesn't add to the article to post the entire plot of the show. You shouldn't be able to use the article as a replacement for watching the show, but you should have a pretty good idea of what it's about. I think the article already does a good job of that. --Kraftlos (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elfen Lied (anime)

I propose that the information regarding the TV series be made into a new article. While the lead declares that Elfen Lied is a "manga series created by author Lynn Okamoto", the bulk of the information stems from the anime adaptation. There's no info on the manga's development but there's a long section on the anime's production. The bulk of the images are anime screencaps. The plot section summarizes what happens on the TV series and the "Style and themes" and "Reception" relate only to the anime.

I think splitting the article is the way to go. It's a heck of a lot easier that straightening the article to focus on the manga.--Nohansen (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose. There's simply not enough information out there, at least information in English, to write about the manga. Yet, if such an article was started, it would almost be exactly the same. If you think there's enough content, why not expand the article? I'm trying to make it an FA and more details would only help it more. ætərnal ðrAعon 09:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
An article on the manga (like this one) could never make to FA. Like you said, there's next to none information on the manga; and a complete, FA-quality article needs a "Production" section, a "Design" section and a "Reception" section. You'd be hard-pressed to find that for the manga.
But all that info is available on the anime adaptation. My suggestion is to follow the example of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (anime) article. It started as coverage on the Haruhi novels, the first entry in the series and its anime adaptation. But editors saw there was potential for expansion in a solo article for the anime and promptly split it. "The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (anime)" passed GA without much objection.
The same can't be said for this article. Like I said, for an article that claims to be about the manga, there's not much info about it. No "Production", no "Design", no "Reception", no real artwork examples, and the plot is retelling the TV series. The definition of diclonious stems from the TV series ("Diclonius, according to the anime..."); and there's even a "See also: List of Elfen Lied episodes" in the plot section, admitting this is the plot according to the anime.
But that's just my opinion. I'm not going to press the issue.--Nohansen (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I know the article focuses on the anime, but the fact is, it still has a "Production" and "Reception" section, so we're still expanding that. Either way, does that mean that it would be better to have separate articles like the "Elfen Lied (anime)" article (which would have sufficient information) but the single article, by not having sufficient information, wouldn't make FL? See, the plots are too similar and so are the themes and reception. So I think we should split these headings into a separate section instead of as subheadings under "Anime" to satisfy everyone. ætərnal ðrAعon 10:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose.I believe the articles should not be split. The manga article would be to short for Wikipedia.

Also a lot more information is in the anime then the manga. You could always put more information about the manga yourself. You could also change some pictures to their comic book style. There is a lot of stuff you can do without splitting the article. I see no sense in splitting the article. And I agree with the first person who opposed. You should see the "Русский" article. I know you may not be able to read it, but that is a pretty good Elfen Lied article I have to say. Maybe you could learn off of something like that. Cardinal Raven (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

  • Oppose. The current article covers the series as a whole. While splitting the anime into its own article might be a convenient method of gaming WP:FA, it will not serve our readers well and goes against accepted style. --erachima talk 05:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the correct solution is to fix this article to include more manga information, and tone down unnecessary anime details. Splitting just hides the real problem. This would also violate the MoS, which does not allow for separate articles unless the adaptations are significantly different (as in pretty much totally different stories, not the usual leaving out/adding characters). Lack of information is never a good reason to split and nothing I see here suggests the two are different enough for a split. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge the songs

The two articles on the opening and ending songs have little contents left once copyvio is removed, and don't really have any credible notability of their own. I suggest the relevant content be merged into the relevant section of this article (or into "Elfen Lied (anime)", should the split occur), so that the song articles can be safely disposed of as copyright violations. Bikasuishin (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Hmmm. By that, I mean support merging "Lilium" and oppose merging "be your girl". There's only about one paragraph of info for "Lilium", that's all that can really be said beside the lyrics (which can go to Wikisource), thus allowing the info to enhance the series article. However, "be your girl" is important in regards to Chieko Kawabe more than the series, as it was her first single and it was released on the charts. ætərnal ðrAعon 10:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm not really convinced that Be Your Girl really stands on its own as an encyclopedic article, per WP:MUSIC#Songs (A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album), but it seems that most copyvio problems have been dealt with there, and you're right that most of it should probably be merged to the debut album or to Chieko Kawabe anyway.
Can we agree to merge and redirect Lilium (song) at least? This own has severe copyvio problems, in addition to dubious notability. We could do without a specific disambiguation tag on Lilium, too. Bikasuishin (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article Elfen Lied is too long and "Elfen Lied (anime)" is not that short either. Merging them compromises readability. --Da Vynci (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, as you seem to have taken upon yourself to expand the Lilium (song) article beyond a two-line stub, I guess it's okay. Remember, however, that everything in the article should be reliably sourced, and that we have a policy against copyright infringement. Bikasuishin (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Cool, so can we remove the merging tag now? --Da Vynci (talk) 08:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The beginning of the article

It says diclonius are a different species yet the article on diclonius and many bits in the manga say otherwise infact the description of the manga says mutated homo sapien not something else can someone please fix that--Vipa Human (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the description is really wrong, but I'm not an expert in evolution terms. If they are mutated homo sapiens, then they can very well be different species of the same genus. This is sort of like the homo superior concept in X-Men, however inaccurate the term is. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem with that is issues with genetic compatibility and diclonius have been stated to compatible with normal humans and give birth to fertile offspring no infertile hybrids which is what supposed to happen with species of the same genus(kakuzawas line was a glitch in the evolution whos genes diluted mating with normal people, Lucy bloodline fixes this as stated in the manga.) With xmens mutants those issues also pertain too many things are againts them being a different species especially that fact. This is the same issue with diclonius--Vipa Human (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Status and Article Issues

I've tagged the article for multiple issues. It needs some serious clean up to comply with the Anime and Manga MoS, the plot cut down, almost all the non-free images removed, and the manga table moved off to its own List of Elfen Lied chapters. There are also some wholly unreferenced sections, numerous unreferenced statements, and some non-neutral language and blatant OR/personal opinion. This is not acceptable in a GA level article. If the article is not brought back up the required GA criteria within two weeks, it will be delisted. Normally, it would qualify for an immediate delisting, but I see some project folks have worked on this, so I'm going to hope that's a sign that clean up is already underway? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll get to this as soon as I can. I've been worried about the unreferenced sections for a while, I guess I didn't follow the screenshots to see what their license status was. I'll probably get to this in the next two days or so. Thanks for the warning! --Kraftlos (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Great :) For the images, keep in mind that the WP:NONFREE policy was severely tightened earlier this year, pretty much disallowing individual character images in articles. Since there is already a character list with the allowed single group image, you may want to just remove the character images all together, or replace them with the one image from the character list. This would fix the bulk of the problem there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I've trimmed down the plot section, but I realized I've removed some key concepts. The plot section really wasn't very well written and had some severe gramatical problems. As for the pictures, I removed the ones that were no longer covered in the plot, but I think the one's remaining are allowable by: "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television". And the individual characters are allowed by: "Barring the above, images that are used only to visually identify elements in the article should be used as sparingly as possible. Consider restricting such uses to major characters and elements or those that cannot be described easily in text, as agreed to by editor consensus." I've briefly looked over other GA and Featured anime articles and it appears to be standard practice to include SOME screen shots and pictures of the main characters (but not every character). --Kraftlos (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Update: I've edited the plot section to be about half as long (though it still needs work). I gave the manga section its own page, moved some photos to the character page, removed some entirely. I rewrote the manga section on the main page. I think the character page needs to be changed from being a list and just write one or two paragraphs about all the characters. The character list page could probably use a "Main character" section so the key characters aren't buried in the list. I think as it is, we've satisfied the copyright/fair use problems and some of the main organizational problems. --Kraftlos (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
No, the individual character shots are not allowed, not here and not in the list. They will be stripped, trust me on this. They violate WP:NONFREE. Make sure you are looking at current GA/FAs and not ones that passed in 2007 or earlier. Also, you seemed to have misunderstood what I meant on splitting out the manga chapters, so I'm fixing that now. Also doing other fixes to bring the article into MoS compliance. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually you're wrong. They are allowed so long as there is not a picture that can cover multiple characters. Of course you cannot fill your character page with individual character shots, but 2 or 3 is perfectly allowable, at least according to the discussions you pointed me to earlier.--Kraftlos (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not, and there obviously is a picture that can cover multiple characters as one is sitting right there at the top of the character list. Either way, I'll others correct you since you continue to think I don't know what I'm talking about. Don't even know why you'd want to fight to keep such useless images that were stolen from a fansite. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

One huge additional issue is the lack of balance. I realize information on the manga is more difficult to come by, however the article is horribly unbalanced towards the anime. The plot and character sections need to be sure it is for the manga, not the anime. The style/themes needs paring down on the anime side, and expanded, if possible, on the anime side. It might also be worth considering to move that to the anime list, along with the anime production section, and make the episode page into something closer to what we see with a season page versus the usual list only anime episode lists. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Season articles that include production and design sections work for series that lasted several seasons, like Cold Feet (series 1) and Smallville (season 1). Sometimes they're even a necessity. But for a series that technically lasted one season, like this one, a "season article" is no different from an article on the show itself. Just add a "Plot" mini-section (giving the show's premise and changes made in the adaptation) and a link to the characters page.--Nohansen (talk) 07:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the plot section is still too long, I was just doing a quick edit to shrink it. Again, I'd like to reiterate that the policy says on #6: "Barring the above, images that are used only to visually identify elements in the article should be used as sparingly as possible. Consider restricting such uses to major characters and elements or those that cannot be described easily in text, as agreed to by editor consensus." That's far from a blanket ban on character shots, which are common in almost any article like this. While it does recommended screenshots with multiple characters like a cast shot, it doesn't bar individual shots of the main characters if used sparingly and agreed upon by the editors. I have some fan compilations that might qualify as a cast shot if you'd rather see something like that.
Again, yes, there is a blanket ban on individual character images. Go ask at WP:NONFREE or read the many archives. Every last attempt to "justify" is smacked down. A character list is allowed, at most 1-3 character images. There have many many many character lists where we've had to go through and strip out 10-30 character images. You want to keep adding it back for decoration, fine, I'll just go note it at non-free and let someone else strip them out because they will be removed regardless. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
"A character list is allowed, at most 1-3 character images." Exactly. Kraftlos (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, aside from the naming convention, I'm not sure how what you did with the manga page is different to what I did. Please explain. --Kraftlos (talk) 08:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
We've been working for three months to get the article to FA, and now it's not even GA standard? The plot section has beeen made more elaborative, and it does need to be seriously cut down, but in regards to the themes, production and style of the anime, I haev provided references when adding text in all instances. Another thing is, very few articles actually use a cover from an edition of a manga in the intro infobox. Most of them use an actual title logo, or some (such as the FA Madlax) use a promo poster. It would be best if the promo poster used for Elfen Lied was put in the intro infobox - it has the same copyright status as the one as that for the FA Madlax. Anyways, I don't see why you say large chunks need referencing when it's obviously been provided, in most instances more than once each paragraph? ætərnal ðrAعon 09:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if my edit of the plot section was a bit hasty. But it seemed like whoever wrote it wanted to include every single detail of the plot (WP is not plot summaries). Anyway, I was wondering about that manga pic at the top too. If I'm not mistaken, the anime is more well-known than the manga. Also that logo was the one the official site uses. It made the article look a lot better. Collectonian keeps talking about some change in the Non-Free image policy, but as far as I can tell, the policy is exactly the same. How long ago did this supposed change occur? I only refer to current policies, it's not as if we're going into the page histories and arguing from 1-2 year old policies. (anyway i'm reverting the logo) --Kraftlos (talk) 09:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I've restored the old plot and cut it down heaps, as I believe that the style of the new plot is vastly in-universe and wouldn't be fully understood by someone with no knowledge of the series. Don't get me wrong, it was too long, so I cut out several bits and pieces, I used a guideling of five paragraphs. As for the intro infobox image, I agree with Kraftlos on this one but I think it's better to use the poster as the manga was not released outside Japan and the artwork is more associated with the series than the manga cover. I've noticed that according to the template at the top of this page, the Russian article is an FA in that Wikipedia, and they use a similar promo poster. I also think the images are of value to the article, I've got rationales for them and the homage to Klimt is a critical part of the series' OP. Neither was I told that the copyright laws have changed recently making my rationales no longer valid when they had been there for some months already. ætərnal ðrAعon 09:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but no, the manga is the primary work, so we will use its image in the infobox. For the infobox, it does not matter that it is unreleased, it is still the first work and what this article's focus should be. This is according to project consensus (go read the recent discussions on this very issue). We do not follow other wikipedia conventions. I've restored the proper image. If you haven't been following non-free then I'm sorry, but FURs do not somehow give a blanket allowance to use excessive non-free image. The policy wording hasnt' changed much, but it is actually being enforced now after a heavy edict from the Wikimedia Foundation. It isn't something with a ton of negotiation room. I would suggest that contributing editors become better acquainted with our MoS, the current GA criteria (which are much stronger than they were when this article passed), and read up more on WP:FICT and WP:NONFREE, before continuing to undo some of the many necessary clean ups just because they prefer the unacceptable versions. If clean up efforts are going to continue to be hampered and you guys don't want to actually bring the articleup to Wikipedia standards rather than your own personal preferences, say so now so I can go ahead and send it to GAR for relisting and not waste the time and effort to try to salvage it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I recognize that you do a lot of work with the Manga and Anime project, but please don't go referring to yourself as "we". You are an individual and need to talk to us as a collaborator, not an administrator.--Kraftlos (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The MoS simply states that the article has to discuss the original work. It doesn't say that the cover has to be the picture. Reading the discussions on the manga infobox talkpage, it seems to me that the consensus is that whatever image best identifies the series is what is preferred. Often this is a cover scan, but in this case, we're dealing with a manga that isn't released outside of japan. The template reads "A relevant image for the work, which should be a movie poster, a DVD/VHS cover, screenshot, or another related image. Be sure to include a valid fair use rationale for the image if you upload one. (Optimal image size is 230px) Since this is the english wikipedia and the anime is the only part of this series released in english, the most relevant picture would probably come from the anime.
BTW, it would have been more helpful if you had actually posted a link to the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(anime-_and_manga-related_articles) so we could all find it rather than beating us over the head with it then leaving us to find it on our own. --Kraftlos (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been following the discussions on the project page, MoS page, infobox page, etc. for a couple of months now, and looking through this, Collectonian has it pretty close to right according to the discussions the project has had recently. It is true that she cannot always speak for the project as a whole, but in this case, I haven't found one instance where she injected her own opinion or interpretation of any discussions or guidelines, beyond what is necessary for the application of those guidelines. I think your main problem may be that you don't like seeing a previously unrelated person step in from outside and make large edits to an article you feel you have ownership over. —Dinoguy1000 21:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
My problem isn't that drastic changes are being made, or that an outside editor is making them. My problem is the condescending attitude, and the fact that some of the changes have nothing to do with the MoS even though that's what I keep getting pointed to. --Kraftlos (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Your split seemed to be trying to make a separate article for the manga (inappropriate) and you basically just copy/pasted to shove it out of the article. Mine removed the "differences" et al stuff, properly formatted it, filled some misisng info, gave it a start of a lead, added a reference and category section. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as references and citing sources; how exactly would one go about getting references for this anime. The official site? Would the anime news network encyclopedia considered a valid source. My japanese is really bad, so I can't use the official site. --Kraftlos (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
My Japanese isn't so good either, but the official site is really great for referencing, that's where many references are from. I just sent the text through Dictionary.com's translator. ætərnal ðrAعon 09:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
By finding reliable sources. The official site is acceptable for basic stuff, ANN is a valid source (except things like the trivia section), as is AnimeOnDVD and a few other anime review sites (the rest, may want to post here if you aren't sure). Might also be mentioned in some anime/manga books, magazine articles, etc. Wouldn't be surprised if it got coverage in NewType and the like when it was released considering its nature. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know how to find reliable sources. I'm a journalist. I was asking what sources people thought would be useful for this page. Mainly directed at those who have been working on this page longer than me. --Kraftlos (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Free Rational

The current Wikimedia foundation licensing policy still allows for the non-free exemptions on the English wikipedia under the fair-use rational.

Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) A project-specific policy, in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any), that recognizes the limitations of copyright law (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project, regardless of their licensing status. Examples include: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content and http://pl.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Dozwolony_u%C5%BCytek.

I see the phrase "project specific" and you mentioned that this project does things differently, but i haven't come across any specific image policy specific to manga and anime, so I'm going to have to defer to the WP criteria. Fair use is acceptable under the following conditions:

  1. No free equivalent.
  2. Respect for commercial opportunities.
  3. Use -
  1. Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
  2. Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the Image: namespace.
  1. Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published outside Wikipedia.
  2. Meets general WP standards for encylopedic content
  3. Meets WP's image policy
  4. Has to be placed in an article.
  5. Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
  6. Restrictions on location. Not in disambiguation pages, no image gallery, not in talk pages
  7. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:
  1. Attribution of the source of the material and, if different from the source, of the copyright holder. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#When uploading an image.
  2. A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content.
  3. The name of each article (a link to the articles is recommended as well) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use.

Placing an image of Lucy breaking out of the base in the plot section conveys the idea of the first 15 mins of the anime (and I assume the manga) in a way that cannot be conveyed merely through words. It also meets all of the above criteria. No one is ignoring WP:NONFREE, we're all very familiar with it. Let's avoid this edit war and DISCUSS this. I think æt should have some say since he's been working on page for quite a while. Also keep in mind that this was once a featured article and hasn't really changed that much since then. --Kraftlos (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This wasn't once a featured article unless I'm missing something. It passed GA under looser guidelines than exist now. And no, the image of Lucy breaking out does not convey anything extra nor is it necessary. Its decoration, nothing more. As for avoiding edit warring, you are the one who reverted the clean up rather than bring your objections here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I reverted your edit, but that's simply because you made some drastic changes to the article without discussing it. I didn't initiate. How does that not add to the plot description? That's the most distinctive scene in the entire series. It's used in the trailers on Anime Network. Explain. --Kraftlos (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I made appropriate drastic changes to fix the article and bring it in line with the MoS and get it into shape so it won't need to be delisted. That you don't agree with the clean up is another whole issue, and that you want to continue arguing over stuff despite it being in-line with real good article, well, that's a third. Its still decoration. Being used in the trailers, frankly, doesn't mean anything at all. It is not critically discussed, and acts as nothing more than decoration. A reader does not need to see the image in order to gain some additional understanding. They gain nothing from it at all. Indeed, as you keep insisting the poster should be the infobox image, its also just redundant. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delisted

As per my original message, Elfen Lied has now been delisted as a GA. The image issue was taken care of, some MoS fixes were done, and I myself fixed the issue with the manga chapter table. However, the majority of the other issues have been left unaddressed. The article has a vast amount of unreferenced statements, failing GA criteria 2. Specifically:

  • "Differences between media" is completely unreferenced, making it original synthesis.
  • Nothing in the character section is referenced, though it contains statements that appear to be interpretative rather than straight statements of plot summary.
  • All of "Diclonius" is unsourced, though again it contains interpretative statements
  • "Style and themes" also is mostly unsourced, though it is interpretative and provides analysis the series and its characters
  • "Production" is mostly unsourced
  • "Anime" has only one sourced statement, though it contains what can be considered "statistics"

Additionally, of the references given, some are not refs at all. Refs 4 & 5 are unreferenced statements that needs references of their own. Ref 19 is a dead link. Ref 21 is a personal blog and fails WP:RS. The plot section is too long, while the manga section is too short. This fails criteria 3. The prose needs work and the article needs a copyediting (from a non-involved editor), failing criteria 1. After these issues are fully and properly addressed, I highly recommend a peer review and then renominating for GA. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits and concerns of Collectonian

I've been working for three months to get this article to FA status, and believe that this recent wave of edits is anything but beneficial to achieving such. According to WP:MOS-AM:

#Articles should be self-contained, only referring to subpages for additional information or details if the main article or a section becomes too long. Follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Summary style when creating subarticles.

  1. Article introductions should be primarily about the original format of a work and not about the most popular format of that work. For example: "Bleach is a manga series, which was later adapted into an anime series", NOT "Bleach is an anime series, based on a manga of the same name." In cases where title disambiguation is necessary, a similar guideline should be followed.
  2. Please follow Wikipedia guidelines when including spoilers.
  3. When adding categories to an article, use one or more of the subcategories from Category:Anime and manga by genre. Try to pick the most accurate categories, and avoid redundant genres. (For example, action is a subcategory of drama, so it is not necessary to include drama as a genre.) In general, two or three genres should be sufficient for most articles.
  4. Please also use one of the subcategories from Category:Anime by date of first release and Category:Manga by date of first release (as applicable). There should be only one anime and one manga release year category for each article unless there are multiple releases (e.g., a TV series, an OVA series, and a film).

In regards to this:

  • Collectonian's deletion of the "Diclonius" and other significant plot details is contrary to 1).
  • Collectonian's plot is in-universe, and would not be understood by one without knowledge of the subject, without having to navigate to another article (in this case, Diclonius (Elfen Lied)).
  • The manga is not available outside Japan and is not recognised outside Japan thus.
  • The opening paragraph of the plot summary, describing the interactions of the diclonius with humans, is inconsistent with WP:WAF#Plot summaries.
  • The images are necessary in description of the article.

As far as I'm concerned, Collectonian is cutting the quality of this article in her own best interest. Several of the sections need to remain in order for it to be upgraded to FA or even stay a GA, and removal of information is contrary to this objective. ætərnal ðrAعon 03:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, I didn't rewrite the plot so don't attribute it to me. Second, how the heck is removing Diclonus a violation of #1 which is with regard to the lead?? None of the rest of the stuff you've listed appears to have anything to do with this conversation at all? The manga being available outside Japan is no reason to ignore it (and that is a false statement as it was released in Spanish), and the character appearance is not so dramatically different that the cover of the manga does not clearly identify/represent the series. And no, any character images and decorative are not necessary. If the article loses GA, it will not be upgraded to FA and had to taken it to FA, I'd have been one of the first to strongly oppose it as it was not in GA, much less FA, shape (and still isn't). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
"Decoration" is simply your opinion. Several of the images, notably the first seven minutes and the OP, give it the homage to the Klimt artwork and the boldness of the first seven minutes. As far as I'm concerned, Collectonian is not "cleaning up" the article. Kraftlos pointed out the validity as our edits are based around both MoS and the guidelines of non-free content pasted above. ætərnal ðrAعon 03:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) So far, not a single person has voiced agreement with you that the images are somehow necessary to the article besides the you and Kraftlos, and neither of you seems able to look at it neutrally. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Neutrally? Since when have you been "neutral" in explaining this article? You're not even an admin. Two against one here, and you're not the one supposed to be judging neutrality in this case. Kraftlos counts as a person, duh. ætərnal ðrAعon 03:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually two against two, if you read the whole conversation as Dinoguy1000 supported me. And what does "not even an admin" have to do with anything? I am neutral, I'm just cleaning it up per the project MoS guidelines and Wikipedia guidelines. The only ones screaming are you two who are making ownership claims and your arguments are all versions of WP:ILIKEIT rather than actually being supported by the things you are quoting. Stop the reverting, not only are you undoing my edits, but you are also undoing edits that fixed the infobox and removing needed tags. As such, it could be considered a form of vandalism. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Whoa, okay, here's my take on it, though I'm having a little trouble here. If Collectonian is opposed to the two images in the Themes section, then why did she revert to a version which included them?. Other images that were removed (the 4 character shots) shouldn't rightfully be there; the image at List of Elfen Lied characters is sufficient. The infobox image, I think, can go either way. Primary material or not, I've been involved in a discussion with Collectonian in the past about infobox images, and there is nothing that says the a cover of the primary work, in this case the manga, has to be used; it's just what is generally defaulted. I personally think the other image with Lucy works just as well as it features the series' logo with the main character, just as the manga image does, but with different art. The fact that the manga is unlicensed in English makes no difference. The plot section is much too large and should be shortened, but I feel an explanation of what a Diclonius is is vital to the plot, though even that can be shortened and merged into a single, more compact, plot section. Remember that the plot should reflect the overall story, and should not take liberties with the anime, or make it seem like it was written with an anime bias. This should also be why the List of Elfen Lied episodes is not linked in this section. A section discussing the differences between the media, of which has already started, is a good thing and should be expanded by someone familiar with both media types.-- 04:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, I have never said that we own the articles, I'm complaining that opinions weren't even being taken into consideration. I'm well-versed in the philosophy of wikipedia and have read most the ediqate and community-related policies and essays; would never claim to own an article, that's just stupid.
I'm all for everyone working on the article together, so long as the article gets better, not worse. I actually proposed very early on, that that cast shot be moved down on the character list so that we can use it to reference all four female characters. I have no problem with the character shots being removed if more acceptable replacements can be found which include multiple characters. With regard to the four MoS points above (which I presume all of us are referring to), my main concern with this article is the spoilers, the plot summary really only needs to describe the premise of the show and maybe the plot of the first couple episodes, of course major themes like Diclonius need to be included. With regard to the availability of the original work in english, it simply means that it's going to be very hard to find information on it. We can do what we can, but it really shouldn't keep us from writing all we need to about the anime, some of it might even be the same in both works. I'll track down a scanslation and see if I can read a bit of it...
Also, when I moved the manga volume list off-page, I moved several specific sections with it that got deleted; I'm now up to date on the entire MoS and understand why what I did wasn't in keeping with the established guidelines; but if we could some how bring that info back and work it into the main article, that would be great (if this has already been done, ignore my last point).--Kraftlos (talk) 04:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Please remember, Wikipedia is not a spoiler free zone. The plot section should give the entire over all plot, not just a teaser or a summary of the start. To be comprehensive and accurate, it should include the beginning, major plot points, and the ending. Google "Elfen Lied manga" and should find what you're looking for in the first few results in very easy to read forms too. *whistles innocently* The information removed from the manga break out was all unsourced. If it can be sourced, it should be incorporated appropriately. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm familiar with WP:Spoiler. What I should have said was, the way the plot section was set up, you could have basically sat here and read the description as a replacement for the manga/anime. It shouldn't spoil all the plot, it should only mention the important points of the plot which are necessary to understand what happens in the anime. It would be nice to have subsections which indicate opening, ending, etc as mentioned in the policy, so someone know what they're about to read. With the unsourced sections, I wasn't sure what was in there. If it was unsourced, I'm sure that would could find a source for it. I personally would never add unsourced info to an article, but I generally don't delete it if it's correct but unsourced. It would be easier to find sources and re-write, then to delete and start over. --Kraftlos (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
But the main thing is the plot needs to be condensed drastically, and get rid of the anime bias. Phrases like Toward the end of the series, Kurama is forced to risk the fate of both diclonius and humanity by unleashing Mariko... is purely based on the anime's interpretation of events near the end of that series, but says nothing about what happens at the end of the manga. Basically, we don't even have to go into seriously detail with the manga, as Wikipedia is not a plot summary, so a nice concise overview of the major premise and themes which appear in both media works wonders (and I doubt you'd ever get this article up to FA without doing this). Any other comparisons and differences can go in the "Differences between media" subsection.-- 06:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
When did I say I believe that this article is mine? Sure, this is a public domain encyclopedia, but this article has been at peace until you came along. I've been asking around and Juhachi agrees on this one. Why did you delete half the plot and only have the information of the first two episodes, when you yourself said, "The plot section should give the entire over all plot, not just a teaser or a summary of the start"? How dare you call my edits vandalism. I have condensed the plot, I have added inline citations, and WikiProject anime and manga does not oppose the use of fair use images if they are necessary to the series, a staement which I have verified there.
Either way, Juhachi: how shall we arbitrate this and get on with the goal of FA status while we are threatening to lock it and Collectonian is refusing to co-operate with Kraftlos and I? ætərnal ðrAعon 07:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I left you a note regarding that. You were extremely careless in your undoing. And the anime and manga MoS is NOT the deciding factor on images, its WP:NONFREE which has already said multiple times that no, they are not necessary and they will be removed. Tell you what, go ahead and revert it back to the old version (ask permission of the admin first), and I'll just go ahead and do the GAR and list it at WP:NONFREE for stripping since I'm just some "disruptive editor" who doesn't know anything about this stuff. As Juhachi can probably tell you, I've taken several of the project articles to GA and they have all been delisted because I actually do know what I'm talking about (if I hadn't made the mistake of attempting to help clean up the article, I'd just do a straight delist, which Juhachi will also likely tell you (with hopefully only mild annoyance :P) will be upheld because again, I do know what I'm talking about. The article isn't GA and nothing y'all have done will get it there. It sure isn't FA either. I'm not "refusing to cooperate" you have blatantly rejected every bit of clean up I did just because you didn't do it and you don't like how "the nazi" did it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

(Unindent) (Thinks to self: How is it that I became the middle man?) Okay, this is what I suggest should be done. Condense the plot, make it manga-centric, give an overview of the beginning and major plot points and an ending if one is available, as in one of us (or some other editor) can provide one (I'm looking at you, Collectonian, on this issue). Expand differences between media. Characters looks okay, but the image at List of Elfen Lied characters can be included. The two images in "Style and themes" I believe are necessary, since they help illustrate the point about the nudity and violence in the series (pic one), and the direct relation to "The Kiss" (pic two). Collectonian herself has argued about the inclusion of such images that help to illustrate prose at List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters, and I do not believe any of the current images used in the article are mere decoration, so shouldn't be removed. The individual character pics don't belong there (as I said, single image is better) and of the two anime images formally used in the article, I think this image might be able to be salvaged, if it can be used to illustrate Lucy's dark side. The image of Kouta and Lucy as kids I think is superfluous, and what with the plot eventually reduced, one image for this section will be enough. Everything else looks to be in-line, at least for a GA. For FA concerns, copyedit the prose, cite everything, expand production, and perhaps condense the Characters section into a smaller single paragraph (I myself had to do this on the recently GA-promoted Air (visual novel)). The infobox image can be the last thing debated, if need be (as it's the least of the article's problems). And cite anything you can for it to be a GA standard as well.-- 08:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, let's make sure we're clear here. I argued for the existance of two group images, which meet Non-Free (as was agreed on Non-Free) and one of which was a relevant to the discussion. Never said 1-3 GROUP images couldn't be added to the character list, indeed I encouraged it. But they don't want that. They want to argue for keeping several tiny, stolen low quality individual character images that do violate WP:NONFREE. I also never argued against the images in the style and themes nor did I remove them. I argued against the decorative ones in the plot section which did not illustrate any points at all (they are currently removed, you'll need to look back to see them[1]). Would also suggest they stop focusing on the images and look at the other GA criteria I noted the article fails like the "wholly unreferenced sections, numerous unreferenced statements, and some non-neutral language and blatant OR/personal opinion" which are grounds for quick delisting. And don't look to me, I'm not going to bother doing anything else to the article but watch it sink or swim on its own and then revisit in two weeks as already noted to see if it is back at GA level. (As for how you became the middle man...I asked you to look at it because no one could ever say we were operating in tandem :P and I knew you would view it neutrally and honestly; and you are one of the most active editors in the project and well versed in policy and guidelines, even if we regularly argue over the nuances) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
(Due to me updating you didn't see but) As I said above, this image might be able to be used to illustrate how Lucy changes to her dark side, if the prose can reflect it which I don't think is hard. The image of when Kouta and Lucy were kids I think can be removed, as well as the promo poster (unless it can be used to illustrate something in the prose).-- 08:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree there; you could justify using the promo poster instead of the manga cover, since the manga covers are deliberately not representative of the series (actually...nah, it's probably mostly blogs in Japanese talking about how the covers are cunningly made to attract a more moe audience, would be impossible to source), but I'm not sure I'm seeing how Lucy's dark side needs illustration. Doceirias (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In short, the images that Collectonian removed are excessive and in violation of WP:NFCC, but per Juhachi, some of them may be utilized to reflect part of the plot. The Diclonius section is really excessive and needs to go, as it violates WP:WAF and simply needs to be summarized better. That and the article should be merged or deleted. And why the hell is there edit warring over the infobox? Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Shall I update the rationales for the images then? ætərnal ðrAعon 09:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

To be brief, if anyone reverts someone again I'm going to lock the page until you guys can solve this. That means; I don't care if you disagree with someone's edit, bring it up here, don't go reverting. Please don't make me lock it; we're all mature here, surely we can handle some civilized discussion? Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I wont edit again until we have a concensus. I think we've gone past our three reverts. --Kraftlos (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

How about we get the article in line with MoS and the relevant WikiPolcies and worry about the images after the content is in place. I'm tired of debating it. I still disagree about with their removal, but it will be easier make deicisions about images after the article is in better shape. For now, I gonna go get a scanlsation of the manga. I think we can all agree that the plot section needs to shrink and that there needs to be less of a focus on the anime. --Kraftlos (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Proposal of Diclonius (Elfen Lied)

I already know that most of this article has to go, as it is unsourced. But I thought I'd set up a merge proposal so we could salvage what we can and get rid of the unnecessary article. --Kraftlos (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I also was wondering if we should merge the music articles into this page, or into a separate music page. Having pages for individual songs seems a bit unnecessary. My ultimate goal would be that we could get this down to just the group of related Elfen Lied articles (which would be easily identified by their title (and perhaps delete the category). --Kraftlos (talk) 10:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Finally, we're making sense. I would oppose the merge of the songs into one article and rather merge them into this article as it adds to its value. ætərnal ðrAعon 11:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Support. Same as with Lucy/Nyu, the topic isn't notable enough to stand alone per WP:FICT. For the individual songs, I'd recommend merging to the episode list, following the formatting and example of our featured episode lists. For this article, a prose section on the CD releases would be preferred.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Support, per Collectonian. Nice to see everyone's heads finally cooling off, let's hope it stays that way. *crosses fingers* —Dinoguy1000 17:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I've made a separate proposal to merge what little information from the Lucy and Nyu page we can use into characters page. I think a soundtrack or music section would be appropriate on the main page, the stubs for the individual artists could stay, but merge the songs into a music section on this page. I don't recall ever seeing music on an episodes list. --Kraftlos (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Here are some of this year's featured episode lists to illustrate my suggestion regarding the individual pieces of music: List of Trinity Blood episodes, List of True Tears episodes, List of Rental Magica episodes, List of FLCL episodes, and List of Night Wizard episodes. For the CDs/soundtracks, we haven't had a series FA in quite awhile, so I'll point to some I've worked on (all B class and all but the last have been peer reviewed), to show what I mean: Wolf's Rain (all soundtracks), Tokyo Mew Mew (mix of soundtracks and character CDs), and Blood+ (all soundtracks). Hope that helps clarify things. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
That looks really good. I'll just go and make that edit now. --Kraftlos (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I merged Lillum, but I think "Be your girl" should be either kept as a stub or merged with the artist's article. There really isn't anything there that would be relevant to an Elfen Lied article that isn't already there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraftlos (talkcontribs) 19:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Since its already tagged for notability, feel free to "be bold" and redirect it to the artist's article as it does fail WP:MUSIC. :)-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would support the merge of Diclonius only if the Diclonius section was restored in the article. ætərnal ðrAعon 04:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that what merging it means? Or are you saying you don't want it just lumped in with the plot? Doceirias (talk) 05:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
There was a sub-section of the plot focusing on the Diclonius but Collectonian doesn't want it there (one of our disagreements), so she deleted it. As a result, I believe if Diclonius were to be merged that section should be put back up. ætərnal ðrAعon 07:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The MoS seems to show a rather strict set of sections to have in an article, but it would seem proper to discuss diclonius in their own subsection as it's the focus of the anime. I think this should probably go under plot, in its own subsection, not as a loose paragraph or two. Much of the separate article is unreferenced, we should salvage what we can and make the subsection roughly 2-3 paragraphs. --Kraftlos (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Just so you know, articles don't have to follow the structure laid out in the MoS to the letter. The MoS is a guideline, not a set of rules. So, a section on the "Diclonius" is possible.
Also, I feel I need to remind all involved that "one huge additional issue is the lack of balance" (Collectonian). If the article is still biased towards the anime by the end of Collectonian's two week grace period, it may be stripped of its GA-status even if all other issues are addressed.--Nohansen (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
IMHO, if a seperate Diclonius section is added back into this article, the best place for it to go would be as a subsection of the "Characters" section. —Dinoguy1000 16:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense.Kraftlos (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Who actually has the power to strip the article of its GA status?
I mean, since the manga is not well-known anywhere near the anime, doesn't it still make sense for the article to be anime-centred? I believe there are several reasons as to why the article should be able to reach GA or FA even if it is anime-centred or balanced. Firstly, the manga was not necessarily a prequel to the anime. The manga was not complete even as the anime was being made, and thus there are substantial differences. The manga was also never released outside Japan, and thus most people outside Japan consider the anime to be the "first" of the media; and besides, this is an English-language encyclopedia. I haven't read the manga, could I request someone who has to provide more detail towards the manga though? ætərnal ðrAعon 01:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Pretty much any editor can delist a GA provided time was given to clean up (which I have done, with 2 weeks given instead of the 1) and the article no longer meets the GA requirements. This one does not as detailed in my first message. If the issues are not fixed, including the unnecessary imbalance, it will be delisted. The article will then either have to finished being fixed and renominated for GA. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I've done what I can. Per the deletion of Diclonius, I've restored the section into the plot. This is a merge, not a deletion, anyway. I've made improvements to the grammatical statements and sentence structure, removed weasel words, and changed the general tone of the article. Tick for copy-editing. Using the official Elfen Lied website, I've added more inline citations. Tick for referencing, but for FA nomination would need more. I've got this five-paragraph guideline for plot summaries, but there are too many side-plots in the series, so it's done in six paragraphs. If it looks long, it's probably because of the image. Tick for plot length. Now all I need for keeping it GA and possibly nominating it for FA is to make the article more manga-centred. Since I haven't read the manga, I'll need help here. ætərnal ðrAعon 06:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing

I've noticed that many articles on video games, FAs included, actually quote from cutscenes and dialogue in the game and use them as inline citations. Is this passable to make GA/FA standard in this article? It did for several video game FAs. ætərnal ðrAعon 11:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)